Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, April 27, 2015

Section 8 Group 1 Was Pyrrho Truly Skeptical?

Was Pyrrho truly skeptical? Or was he simply giving this “skepticism” a chance? I do not think that he TRULY believed that everything could be questioned. He was merely saying that, everything could be questioned. He most likely came up with this idea in his later years. He has all of his past memories and experiences that tell him what will most likely happen. He definitely did not live his childhood thinking this way because he never would have survived. If he truly did question absolutely everything, then he would be deeming his entire life useless. If you can’t be certain of anything, then why are you here? That would be my question to ask Pyrrho. Although, I think I would get a very vague answer in response. Probably something like, “I don’t know.” This would not be helpful in questioning Pyrrho. However, the question that I think Pyrrho would have trouble answering is a little different. If you can’t be sure of anything, then doesn’t that mean that you can’t even be sure of this theory? And if you take that to be true, then doesn’t that mean you can be sure of everything? The whole idea is complete nonsense that you can’t get to make sense. It is similar to circular reasoning. A point can be made and you can contradict that point, but then the contradiction can also be used to enhance the argument. It is complete chaos. I’m sure this way of thinking goes far beyond what Pyrrho initially believed, but I don’t believe that he can be unsure of everything that happens. How could a human function if they disagreed with everything, even their own thoughts? Several reasons still exist for why Pyrrho thought this to be the way of life. To an extent, you should have doubts about some things. The flip side to this coin is that there are some things that you should be certain of. Pyrrho didn’t see the balance between the two. If the only thing you have is doubt, you will never learn anything. But if the only thing you have is certainty, you will often be wrong.

1 comment:

  1. "I do not think that he TRULY believed that everything could be questioned." In fact, to be consistent he must NOT "truly believe" anything, including the proposition that one ought to be as skeptical as Pyrrho. And that does seem at least paradoxical, if not flatly self-contradictory.

    But as you imply, to get whatever therapeutic benefit there might be in Skepticism, perhaps we need to let up on the logical accelerator and just try to understand what he saw as the value of non-commitment. I think I understand what he was trying to say. And, I still prefer the moderate variety of skepticism that keeps searching for truths.